Babe Ruth greatest player ever

[DixieDestroyer]

Babe gets the nod from most as the “greatest” but in my opinion, Ty Cobb was the best baseball player of all time. Either way, both were ions better than Aaron, Mays & many other (overhyped) ‘afroletes’.

 

[FootballDad]

Babe gets the nod from most as the “greatest” but in my opinion, Ty Cobb was the best baseball player of all time. Either way, both were ions better than Aaron, Mays & many other (overhyped) ‘afroletes’.

One position that isn't brought up much in the GOAT debates is the pitcher. Cy Young's records will never even be approached. Out of 815 games started, he has 749 complete games!! 511 wins, 7,335 innings pitched. Men were truly men back when Mr. Young and his contemporaries were playing.

 

[shamrock]

Depends what you want in "a greatest player ever". Most people think of five tool players as the greatest of players. That would be hitting, hitting for power, speed, fielding, and throwing. That would limit the top candidates ever to Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Bonds, maybe Dimaggio. Some think it is hitting/hitting for power. Then you have the above guys plus, Ruth, Gehrig, Williams. Pure hitting: add Cobb and Wagner.

Ruth changed the game. Period. There is no one to compare him to. Ruth is the greatest for who he was not only for what he did. Everone else is just fighting over 2nd place. My 2nd place would be Mays. He got the most out of his talent for the longest. Then Mantle. Aaron, Bonds and Williams all have one major drawback. Their teams never won much. How can you be great if you don't lead your team to victory?

I agree, jaxvid, that the greatest players ever must include several of those you mentioned. Certainly Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Dimaggio, Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Wagner, Ted. (I don't include Bonds because I don't rate players from the Steroid Era.) I would not, however, penalize a player because his team wasn't a big winner.

Prior to the Super Bowl era of football, players weren't thought any less of because their teams weren't big winners. It was the studious analysis of quarterbacks from about the 1970s or '80s on that started that, and especially all the attention that accrued to Joe Montana's four Super Bowl wins. Montana became the standard for QBs, in part because of all those gaudy rings he won. (Even there, it may be fair to ask the question: "How much of that was Montana and how much of that was Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense? And how much was Jerry Rice?)

But with baseball players it seems pretty harsh to penalize a guy because his team wasn't successful. And in that context you mentioned Aaron, but remember the Braves won back-to-back pennants in the 1950s, including a World Series in 1958. Of course, as you point out Williams' teams never won a Series and neither did Cobb's teams. Should that affect their all-time rankings, especially in a sport that is so dependent on pitching, an aspect of the game that no position player has any serious influence upon?

Grappling with questions like who are the greatest players of all time is difficult, and one's subjective feelings inevitably come into play, and I'm aware of that in my own attempts to rank the best. For instance, I don't particularly like Willie Mays. Why not? Well, to my mind Mays was the first true hotdog in baseball. That bit about his cap flying off bugs me, especially since I know Willie set his cap purposefully to do that. It wasn't accidental or spontaneous. Second, Willie is a bitter old man, resentful against white people according to an interview with Bob Costas. So, as a jury of one I may mentally rank Mays below Ruth, Cobb, and Williams, but I know I may not be objective about it, certainly less so than you. Truly a jury of one because most people rank him second only to Ruth. But Mantle and Aaron were both better hitters, not to mention Ruth, Cobb, Hornsby, Gehrig, and Ted. But still, I'm aware that my dislike of Mays enters into this.

That being said, I finally drew up a list of whom I consider the greatest position players ever (pre-Steroid Era). I did it by playing era.

1901-1919: (Deadball Era) Wagner, Shoeless Jackson, Cobb, Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker, George Sisler
1920-1941: Prewar Era: Foxx, Hornsby, Dimaggio, Ruth, Gehrig
1942-1989: Postwar Era: Musial, Williams, Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Frank Robinson

That makes 17 players in all, the 17 players I consider the top tier ever, the creme de la creme. I purposely refuse to rank these in numerical order because it's too difficult to do. I simply consider them all as the best of the best, though if pressed I'd put Cobb, Ruth, and Williams as 1-2-3. I do not rank a top 10 because 10 is an arbitrary cutoff, and I don't consider anything arbitrary here in this numerical sense. Subjective, probably so, but grouped by total number, grouped by simply the very best rather than by any magical number like 10 or 50 or 100, as is always the media's wont.
And I cannot rank the Steroid boys because I don't know enough about them to rate them, nor do I care about them. Someone more knowledgeable might be able to do that here.

 

[ramicackle]

Best baseball players of all time:
1. Babe Ruth
2. Willie Mays
3. Barry Bonds
4. Ted Williams
5. Ty Cobb

 

[Don Wassall]

There's no question that Ruth's impact not just on baseball but American society is unparalleled. Before he came along, the home run leaders in the NL and AL hit less than 20 four baggers, sometimes leading the league with single digits. All of a sudden, Babe Ruth, the great pitcher turned outfielder, came along and hit 29 homers in 1919 and then followed it up with a mind-boggling 54 in '20 and 59 in '21. When he hit 60 homers in 1927, that was more home runs than the total of every other AL team that year! That's domination on a scale never seen before or since. He destroyed the power standards of baseball at a time when baseball was far and away the country's number one sport. Ruth's career batting average of .342 to go along with his pitching prowess is also amazing.

The limited "media" of his time, when the St. Louis Cardinals and the hapless St. Louis Browns were the western-most teams, only made Babe Ruth's impact and aura that much more prolific.

 

[shamrock]

Why Ty Is Better Than Babe and They Both Are Better Than Bonds

I was discussing this topic with a friend last week, building my case for Cobb over Ruth. In prepping for my debate I canvassed the Caste baseball scholars in this particular thread for evidence. So I totaled the votes here and came up with this tally:

Cobb: 3 - IceSpeed, DixieD, shamrock
Ruth: 13 - Ramicackle, jaxvid, Don, white l, guest, arod, Gary, bigun, Bart, KD, JD, Extra Pt., Booth
Hornsby: 1 - IceSpeed (split his vote between Cobb and Hornsby, I think)
Cy Young: 1 - Football Dad

All great picks. (If I have taken anyone's name in vain here, please don't hesitate to lodge a complaint.) Hornsby is often overlooked but is the greatest righthanded hitter of them all. Better hitter than Aaron, Mays, or Joe D. Considering the overwhelming disadvantage of being a righthanded batter - a step or so farther from first; facing righthanded pitchers' breaking balls; left field fences farther away - Hornsby has a case for best hitter ever.

In my (mostly) friendly debate with my neighbor I pointed out a few facts germane to my position that Cobb was the best ever, and perhaps it may sway a vote or two on this thread, but I won't hold my breath on that. I start with blackline numbers. Blackline numbers, in case anyone hasn't heard the term, mean stat numbers that are annual league-leading numbers. These denote league leaders in most significant batting categories. (This info comes from baseball-reference.com.) Note the comparisons among Cobb, Ruth, and Bonds:

Total Blackline Numbers
Cobb: 89
Ruth: 91
Bonds: 54

Post-Season Batting
BA HR OBP SLG
Cobb: .262 0 .314 .354
Ruth: .326 15 .470 .744
Bonds: .245 9 .433 .503

Home Run Crowns
Cobb: 1
Ruth: 12
Bonds: 2

Batting Crowns
Cobb: 12
Ruth: 1
Bonds: 2

RBI Crowns
Cobb: 4
Ruth: 5
Bonds: 1

Total Bases Crowns
Cobb: 6
Ruth: 6
Bonds: 1

Runs Scored Crowns
Cobb: 5
Ruth: 8
Bonds: 1

Stolen Bases Crowns
Cobb: 5
Ruth: 0
Bonds: 0

There are, of course, other categories, but I don't think you'll find much difference in the relative player rankings or crowns won in any of them. In just the six "crown" categories above we see that Cobb won a total of 33 annual titles; Ruth won 32 titles; and Bonds won only 7. Not, obviously, the final word on relative rank, but I do believe that it may indicate one thing: Cobb and Ruth were both superior to Bonds. And the relative blackline numbers are a blowout for Cobb (89) and Ruth (91) over Bonds' 54.

For me it's evidence enough to destroy the mainstream media's claims that Bonds is #1, a nefarious claim to begin with. Factor into this Barry's cornucopia of performance enhancers and he falls far below even 3rd or 4th or 5th or 10th place in the all-time rankings.

Bonds began his steroids program after the age of 35, a time of natural decline in all baseball players. Yet in that timeframe he averaged 49 HRs per year compared to just 32 per year before taking roids and a .328 batting average after starting steroids to a .290 average before. He averaged a .517 OBP on roids vs a .411 before. I could go on and on with similar stats. Without steroids Bonds is a sure Hall of Famer, but certainly not a top tier one, not in the same category as Ruth, Cobb, Williams, Mays, Aaron, Dimaggio, Hornsby, Gehrig, Foxx, Mantle, etc. So let's bury the fiction that he's in their class.

Ultimately, I made one final, crucial point to my friend in our Cobb-Ruth debate. I reminded him that everyone always asks if the old-timers could play in today's game, yet that is an egocentric way of looking at it. Ask instead whether today's players could have played years ago. Could today's football players have played back in the days when a guy had to go both ways, often playing 60 minutes in a game, an era in which there were fewer timeout breaks and no TV timeouts, no oxygen on the sideline, no Gatorade boost, no steroids? Many of today's players would die if they tried. Could today's boxers have succeeded in a time when championship fights went 15 rounds, fighters fought once a month, sometimes once a week, at times even multiple times in a week? Could today's chicken-winged pitchers have played 60 years ago when pitchers routinely went 9, 10, 12, 13 innings in a single game, and then have to come back and pitch on 4 days' rest rather than 5, and in some instances on just 3 days' rest? Their arms would have dropped off.

So now I had my pal set up for the killing blow. We know, I told him, that Cobb could make it in the live ball era, but would Babe have even had a chance in the old dead ball days where frantically running the bases, stealing second, stealing third, or even stealing home was often essential? Could Babe have done that? Would this fellow who was so great at trotting leisurely around the bases be able to play speed ball, to lay down drag bunts, take the extra base, execute the hit-and-run when he was, as we all know, the strikeout king of his time? I smiled smugly. I had him dead in the water. Case closed. The End. Signed, sealed, and delivered. Debate O-vah.

Then he eyed me levelly and said, "How good a pitcher was Ty Cobb?"
My childhood stutter suddenly resurfaced, sweat popped out on my brow, I felt lightheaded. And at that moment he said, "Now I have a stat for you":

Pitching: Cobb, 0 wins 0 losses, 3.60 ERA
Ruth, 94 wins 46 losses, 2.28 ERA

"Buy me a beer now?" he said.
"At least Cobb had no losses," I replied lamely.

 

[ramicackle]

I rank Ruth #1 because, as Don mentioned above, Ruth was just so much better than the players who played during his time - Ruth had 54 HR when the next guy had less than 20. How would Ruth bat against today's pitchers? Probably well if you assume Ruth wouldn't be going out and getting sloshed the night before games like he did in the 1920s. Also, imagine if Ruth had access to modern training and exercise regiments. And, Ruth was an excellent pitcher. Ruth's pitching ability makes this no contest when compared to other players. Ruth is the epitome of a baseball player because he pitched and slugged homers like nobody else.

Mays is my #2 because the pitching he faced was very good - a lot better than the 1920s, and even better than the 1940s. We also know Mays wasn't on roids like Bonds. Mays was a great defender with excellent speed. Mays was the quintessential 5 tool player - what every 12 year old who plays center field strives to be.

Bonds is my #3. Bonds had to face lots of 95mph fastballs, splitfingers, and modern sliders. Pitchers just threw harder in the 1990s versus earlier times. Bonds faced the best pitchers from the Dominican, Venezuela, and Japan. Steroids is a knock against Bonds, but at least he held out until his mid 30s. Also, Bonds had a weak throwing arm. I bet Ruth or Mays could have thrown out Sid Bream at home in the '92 playoffs. Bonds' weak arm made him a 4 tool player.

Ted Williams is my #4. He's probably the best pure hitter ever. He wasn't fast like Mays, Bonds, or Cobb and he didn't have Ruthian power, but he still had good power. The pitching he faced was worse than Mays and Bonds, but better than what Cobb faced. Williams also was a fighter pilot in both WWII and Korea. (not just 1 war, but 2)

Cobb is my #5. He faced the weakest pitching of all 5 players mentioned and had below average power. Of course, he played in a weird era where players often had more triples than HRs and parks were enormous. Some of the triples records from the Cobb era will never be broken. Cobb had great batting averages and speed, but he just didn't instill fear into his opponents in a Ruthian way. Sure, Cobb racked up great stats, but baseball was still in its adolescence before 1920.

Ruth was so good at baseball that he transcends baseball - he's really more comparable to Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, or Tom Brady.

 

[white lightning]

I still have Babe Ruth Number One and it's not as close as some say. I will add though that Micky Mantle deserves to at least be in the conversation.

At the end of the day I'm hoping that Mike Trout will surpass them all. Even with quite a few injuries he is on pace to break most of the records. Can he keep it up is the question?

 

[shamrock]

Ramicackle, you make many excellent points. Totally agree with your comments on Ruth. He is indeed the only player ever that transcended the game. And I get so tired of many people today saying that Ruth couldn't make it now. Ruth had a beautiful swing that generated tremendous power, though his physical profile wasn't so beautiful so, yes, he would have to hit the treadmill some. But can you imagine the Babe with today's nutrients, supplements, workout regimens, etc.? He would be the batting beast of all time, even moreso than he is now. I think he was the greatest natural ballplayer ever, never working intensely at it the way Cobb did or the way Williams did with his continual batting practice and hitting studies.

I can't remember the exact reference, but several years ago, not long after Bonds hit 73 out, a guy wrote a book postulating that with access to all the nutritional, etc., advantages of today, Ruth would hit 104 home runs in a season. He had done a variety of studies, including ballpark dimensions today, modern film study, etc.

I do believe, though, that Cobb would have had little difficulty adjusting to today's conditions and that he would have effectively changed his batting style to fit the times, bringing his hands together on the bat, going to a thinner, whip-like bat, and would have displayed good power. I think he would have been a modern Stan Musial, hitting 30+ homers a year, 100+ RBI, but that he would have hit for even higher batting average than the great Musial. I think his batting averages would be in the range of peak Ted Williams, .350 or .360 per year. That kind of average, along with 30-35 homers a year would, I think, have made Cobb almost as great a player now as he had been in his own time. And Cobb's 5 home runs in two days still has never been topped, I believe, so Ty had the power when he wanted to exert it.

Also Cobb had the ideal baseball physique, pure lean muscle, 6' 1", 180 pounds, always in supreme condition, always willing to outwork everyone. I get tired of seeing today's bulked-up, overbuilt ballplayers, many better resembling linebackers than baseball players. If we think back to what may have been the richest, most talented era of ballplayers ever - the immediate postwar era of 1946-1969, you see plenty of strong but lean and lithe players, and we think immediately of Dimaggio, Ted Williams, Musial, Aaron, Mantle, Mays, Frank Robinson, Clemente, Kaline, Snider, Ernie Banks, Yazstrzemski, Billy Williams, and others. Great ballplayers all, with similar body type. Mantle looked a bit beefier, but still lithe and strong at his youthful best, probably stronger than any player of his time.

 

[shamrock]

I still have Babe Ruth Number One and it's not as close as some say. I will add though that Micky Mantle deserves to at least be in the conversation.

At the end of the day I'm hoping that Mike Trout will surpass them all. Even with quite a few injuries he is on pace to break most of the records. Can he keep it up is the question?

Lightning, virtually every baseball scholar agrees that peak Mantle was better than peak Mays. Mays is only ranked above Mantle historically because Mays wins by sheer accumulation of numbers, but pure quality favors Mantle.

Peak-for-peak Mantle was superior, and the numbers prove it:

Peak-for-Peak, Mantle Vs Mays, 1954-1965

Blackline numbers (league-leading):

Batting Average
Mantle 1
Mays 1

OBP (On Base Percentage)
Mantle 3
Mays 2

Runs
Mantle 5
Mays 2

RBI
Mantle 1
Mays 0

OPS (On Base + Slugging)
Mantle 6
Mays 5

OPS+
Mantle 8
Mays 6

HR
Mantle 4
Mays 4

BB
Mantle 5
Mays 1

Total league-leading numbers for each player in these most important hitting stats:
Mantle 33
Mays 21

Top 5 years - Slugging Percentage comparison:
Mantle: Mays:
.705 .667
.687 .659
.665 .645
.622 .626
.611 .615

Top 5 years Slugging, Mantle averages .658, Mays averages .642

Postseason Numbers:

Batting Avg.
Mantle .257
Mays .247

HR
Mantle 18 (230 at bats)
Mays 1 (89 at bats)

Mantle averaged 1 HR every 13 at bats in postseason play.
Mays averaged 1 HR every 89 at bats.

RBI
Mantle 40 RBI in 230 at bats: 1 RBI per 5.7 at bats
Mays 10 RBI in 89 at bats: 1 RBI per 10 at bats

Mantle was a much better clutch hitter than Mays, and not just in the Series. No one ever accused Willie of being a great clutch hitter. Mantle was a more consistently aware player than Mays. Mays often had mental lapses such as walking off third base with less than 2 outs and getting tagged out. He was subject to more mental lapses.

Mantle was a better peak player than Willie Mays and it isn't even particularly close. Mays was a better fielder, but did May' glove save as many games as Mantle's bat won in his peak years? Decidedly not.

The mainstream media loves Mays above all other ballplayers, but Ted Williams, Mantle, and Hank Aaron were all superior hitters to Mays. Mays beats Mantle and Williams only by mere accumulation, although Aaron outperforms Mays in accumulation in virtually every hitting statistic there is. If you doubt me, look up Aaron's all-time hitting stats in every category and compare them to Mays'. Yet the media loves Mays more. Why? Because Mays made basket catches and his damned cap flew off his head?

And Williams lost far more time to military service than Mays did. Where would Ted be if he'd had that time back?

For peak value, Mantle, Williams, and Aaron were all better than Mays, and Aaron has better lifetime stats than Mays. But the media acts like Willie is God.

 

[ramicackle]

The difference between Mantle and Mays in my book is that Mantle had knee injuries from football and Mantle partied like there was no tomorrow. Mays gets the edge simply for longevity. Mantle did have 7 championships and was the coolest guy in America in the 50s and early 60s.

I have a hunch that Mike Trout is better than both Mantle and Mays. The average reliever throws 98mph now with 86mph sliders and pinpoint control. Trout probably bats .380 in 1955 with 57 HR and 65 SB. Of course, I can't prove this.

 

[shamrock]

The difference between Mantle and Mays in my book is that Mantle had knee injuries from football and Mantle partied like there was no tomorrow. Mays gets the edge simply for longevity. Mantle did have 7 championships and was the coolest guy in America in the 50s and early 60s.

I have a hunch that Mike Trout is better than both Mantle and Mays. The average reliever throws 98mph now with 86mph sliders and pinpoint control. Trout probably bats .380 in 1955 with 57 HR and 65 SB. Of course, I can't prove this.

Yes, Mike Trout is the only reason I'll still watch baseball. I hope he breaks every record possible. Reminds me of America 1.0. Maybe the greatest athlete in America today.

 

[ramicackle]

Yes, Mike Trout is the only reason I'll still watch baseball. I hope he breaks every record possible. Reminds me of America 1.0. Maybe the greatest athlete in America today.

The 2020 Dodgers won the world series with a team that was >80% white. Anyone who likes white baseball players should check in with the Dodgers from time to time. They are whiter than lots of teams from the 60s.

 

[Bucky]

Pretty amazing looking at Dodgers demographics when you consider LA's.. Someone in the front office knows who the ticket buyers are though I'm guessing!

 

[shamrock]

The 2020 Dodgers won the world series with a team that was >80% white. Anyone who likes white baseball players should check in with the Dodgers from time to time. They are whiter than lots of teams from the 60s.

Uh-oh! Watch out for the front office to intervene, and especially that idiot commissioner Manfred, or whatever his name is. They'll soon be doing to the Dodgers what Goodell and the NFL did to Belichick. We can't allow white teams to dominate any sport. It might oppress black people.

 

[Carolina Speed]

I briefly read through all the posts. I have Cobb number one. I just liked the way he played the game. Not to mention all the records he set.
BTW, Cobb won the Triple Crown. Has that been mentioned? Ruth never did.

 

[Carolina Speed]

I briefly read through all the posts. I have Cobb number one. I just liked the way he played the game. Not to mention all the records he set.
BTW, Cobb won the Triple Crown. Has that been mentioned? Ruth never did.

In 1909 Cobb had 9 HR's, 107 RBI, and hit. 377 to win The Triple Crown. Again, Ruth never did win it. Probably the accomplishment he never had.
Another interesting stat. Ruth had 136 triples. Barry Bonds only had 77. Cobb 295.

 

[Carolina Speed]

Cobb is my #5. He faced the weakest pitching of all 5 players mentioned and had below average power.

I read a lot about Cobb when I was younger. There's a story in one of the books I read that reported that Cobb could have hit more HR's if he wanted to to. A reporter challenged him on that and hit went out and hit three HR's in one game the next day. He said he didn't like to hit HR's. He enjoyed keeping the ball inside the park to see if he could beat out a single or hit a double or triple and enjoyed stealing bases.
I don't know if that story is true or not. But I read about it.
If that's true, he was a hellava a player to go out and three HR's after being challenged, on the very next day.

 

[Extra Point]

Imagine Babe Ruth on steroids!

 

[shamrock]

Imagine Babe Ruth on steroids!

Especially on Barry's steroids! 100 HRs in a season. Lifetime, 1,000 HRs. Probably still have energy to pitch once in a while, too.

 

[shamrock]

I read a lot about Cobb when I was younger. There's a story in one of the books I read that reported that Cobb could have hit more HR's if he wanted to to. A reporter challenged him on that and hit went out and hit three HR's in one game the next day. He said he didn't like to hit HR's. He enjoyed keeping the ball inside the park to see if he could beat out a single or hit a double or triple and enjoyed stealing bases.
I don't know if that story is true or not. But I read about it.
If that's true, he was a hellava a player to go out and three HR's after being challenged, on the very next day.

Yes, Carolina, it's true that Cobb hit 3 home runs in one game and then 2 more the next game. 5 homers in 2 games, still a record that no one's beaten. The story that he predicted it to a reporter beforehand may be apocryphal, kind of like the story that Babe called his home run shot and pointed to the spot it would go out but then again, both stories may be true for all we know. Doesn't matter, both stories are the stuff of myth and legend that only baseball can create.

I think Ruth and Cobb were the two greatest ever and I really don't care which one is #1 and which is #2. Doesn't matter because they were both monster talents. And we always hear that Cobb had no power. However one look at the stats tells you Cobb had some pretty good sock.

Cobb's Power Numbers:

1. Led A.L. in slugging 8 times, 6 times consecutively
2. Led A.L. 6 times in total bases
3. Hit 5 HRs in two games (tied for all-time MLB record)
4. Led A.L. 10 times in OPS (On-Base + Slugging)

All of Cobb's 5 HRs in 2 games were over the fence. None were inside-the-parkers.

Also, you make a great point about Cobb's Triple Crown, a great rarity throughout baseball history. A quick list of greats who never won a Triple Crown:

Ruth, Musial, Mays, Aaron, Dimaggio.

One look at Cobb's build tells you he's a lean-muscled, very strong fellow. I have no doubt that he could have had excellent home run numbers all during the live-ball era if he'd wanted to play that kind of power ball, but he thought it cheapened the game so he eschewed it.

 

[Flint]

I don’t think you can really compare players from different eras. Especially Cobb and Ruth. If you get a chance read the book Cobb: A Terrible Beauty. One of the best books I have ever read. In fact I read it again every once in a while.

Besides exploding the myth that Cobb was a fierce racist, the book is a fascinating look at America of that era and the dawn of big times sports.

what allot of people may not realize is that Cobb would fill the stands across the country because people wanted to see him play. On the base paths he was so exciting that other cities fans would cheer for him.

There was no template for “sports superstar” at that time, he was the first, so as much as Ruth changed the game Cobb actually changed American society.

It was an America changing from a mostly rural country to an urban one. Cobb and baseball were a big part of that.

 

[shamrock]

I don’t think you can really compare players from different eras. Especially Cobb and Ruth. If you get a chance read the book Cobb: A Terrible Beauty. One of the best books I have ever read. In fact I read it again every once in a while.

Besides exploding the myth that Cobb was a fierce racist, the book is a fascinating look at America of that era and the dawn of big times sports.

what allot of people may not realize is that Cobb would fill the stands across the country because people wanted to see him play. On the base paths he was so exciting that other cities fans would cheer for him.

There was no template for “sports superstar” at that time, he was the first, so as much as Ruth changed the game Cobb actually changed American society.

It was an America changing from a mostly rural country to an urban one. Cobb and baseball were a big part of that.

Excellent post, Flint. It truly is difficult comparing players from different eras, whether in football or baseball. Worst of all is boxing, where everyone wants to say who can beat up whom, usually to the denigration of past fighters, who are generally smaller. Yet many of them came up in the Depression when nutrition was poor, when they had no access to modern training tables, no proper vitamins and supplements and (ahem) no steroids. Not to mention equipment advances in all sports, especially in golf and track and field.

I plan to buy the Cobb book you mention. I'd already heard that Cobb had for years been very complimentary of black players, had advocated their entry into the game, given money to hospitals serving black areas. But the media wanted to do a number on him and they've been doing it for years. Also, Al Stump had written a book back in the '90s, I believe, that was rife with fabrications about how mean and racist Cobb was, and then they made a movie of it starring Tommy Lee Jones, which greatly enhanced the false reputation of Cobb as villain. Most people on this thread have probably seen it.

I wish I'd seen Cobb play, too, and witnessed the excitement you speak of. He was such a ferocious competitor it would have been fun seeing him flying around the base paths. When the first Hall of Fame members were enshrined back in 1938 or '39, Cobb received more votes than anyone, more than the Babe, Walter Johnson, Wagner, or anyone else. True testimony to what you said about how he helped to change America.

 

[Extra Point]

A poster mentioned Cy Young. I looked him up and found out some interesting things. He, unlike many other pitchers, warmed up only briefly before pitching. He also tried to get batters to hit the ball rather than try to strike them out, which would take more pitches. Naturally he wanted them to ground out or fly out. Also, he was reported to be a vegetarian.

 

[Flint]

Most people might not know but Cobb was an upper class Southerner, his father was a professor and known for his progressive views on blacks.

He ended up quite rich, he invested in Coke stock early and made other good investments. He maintained good friendships with most ball players of his era. He frequently saw Ruth in the off-season and even fixed Ruth up with a gal that, rumors say he might have been intimate with also. Imagine her stories!

You mentioned Al Stump one of histories great douche bags that singlehandedly created the “Cobb is racist” meme. All for his personal profit.

I will say that Tommie Lee Jones portrayal, while totally fictional, is fun to watch. His Cobb character is basically a cranky old man. Racist only because he holds views about blacks that are typical of the era before the race hustlers took over.